Breaking: A peer reviewed admission that “global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008″ – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al. (2011)

The Kaufmann et al 2011 paper (Note: Michael L. Mann is a co-author, not the same as Michael E. Mann of hockey team fame) was embargoed until 8PM GMT (12PM PDT) today, and we have an advance copy thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser .

Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.

But in the conclusion:

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”

It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade.

The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.

They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.

The researchers seek to explain the temperature standstill between 1998 and 2008. They say that the global temperature has increased since then.

This is misleading. There was an El Nino in 2010 (natural cyclic warming) but even that did not raise temperatures above 1998. In fact the standstill has continued to 2010 and 2011 appears to be on course to be a cooler year than any of the preceding ten years.

Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade.

Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out of date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.

Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.

This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported.

185 thoughts on “Breaking: A peer reviewed admission that “global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008″ – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al. (2011)”

Any journal publication (and even many press releases and news articles) that doesn’t fit into the usual scaremongering seems to have a disclaimer that notes man-made global warming (or climate change) is real and happening. It is like it’s a requirement for publication. “Ok, you are allowed to present your findings, but we need you to add a statement in your conclusions to reinforce the IPCC position…”

Well as I have said many times, some of the highest altitudes on planet earth occur up in the mountains. It is supposed to have something to do with a maximum being a preponderance of higher values; whereas a minimum, is more often accompanied by a preponderance of lower values.

So it is to be expected that the “warmest decade” on record, would have some of the highest temperatures.

The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result.
=============================================
But anything that does not show sea levels rising, temperatures increasing, etc
is unexpected and obviously wrong…..
So the excepted way of correcting it, is to make it match the computer models.

“As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.”

“anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role.”
“In-sample simulations indicate that temperature does not rise between the 1940’s and 1970’s
because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions rise slightly faster than the warming effect of greenhouse gases.”

The statement from Kaufman et al 2011 (p 1 of 4): “The hypothesis that the post 1998 period is consistent with the existing understanding of anthropogenic climate change is evaluated with a test statistic that evaluates the null hypothesis that the long-run relationship between global surface temperature and radiative forcing is unchanged after 1998.” turns statistics and logic on its head. The “long-run relationship between global surface temperature and radiative forcing” as modeled is the hypothesis. Basically they are saying: “we can’t say with 95% confidence that our models are wrong” rather than demonstrating with 95% confidence that their hypothesized models are correct. John Baglien

“Although temperature increases in 2009 and 2010, the lack of a clear increase in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2008 (1), combined with rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, prompts some popular commentators (2, 3) to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface
temperature.”

You are taking paper that explains why you are wrong and then just asserting it says you are right. Orwell had a name for this.

Anyone taking the mainstream media’s reporting over the last decade as gospel would believe that each year of the previous decade has been warmer than the last; and that the trend is sharply upward. So I am surprised to see this paper being published at all, given that these same climate scientists have spent years strongly pushing the message that temperatures remain on a sharply upward curve.

Given that the climate models which predict global warming based upon increasing GHGs are constructed of layer upon layer of interlocking assumptions — assumptions which are still held to be true by climate scientists regardless of the acknowledged existence of this decade-length span of contradictory temperature data — then it is no wonder that the authors can’t embrace the most logically-considered explanation: the atmosphere’s actual CO2 sensitivity isn’t what climate scientists claim that it is.

If as they state there is an “increase in the warming effect” of “rising greenhouse gas” then the predicted effect is quadratic warming. On these terms then even sustained linear increase (which is not happening) would represent a falling away from predicted warming. However this extravagent claim is probably more sloppy language than a considered statement..

What also emerges from this is a convenient flexible device to explain any climate change and blame it on humans. Is there warming? Its caused by CO2. Cooling? It can only be smokestack particles.

This is the classic “good God, bad God” religious formula by which politically connected prophets of doom have terrified and controlled the populous for millenia of human history.

New climate science paper is released.
M. Mann is a co-author.
Null hypothesis- Any climate paper co-authored by M. Mann is garbage.
Hypothesis- this is a scientific paper with merit.
Conclusion based on details already in evidence- hypothesis has been falsified.

“The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).””

In point of fact, the statement, which references the IPCC, is predicated on the assumption that climate models contained realistic internal variability. But the failure of models to be able to predict such a hiatus ahead of time shows that this assumption was wrong. To just assert that it is not a contradiction is to say something as ridiculous, basically, that climate is allowed to be cooled by natural variability but not warmed. Which is evidently what these people believe.

I was going to make a lame joke about the ever-increasing number of epicycles, then I realized the analogy doesn’t work. The Ptolemaic system wasn’t wrong, it was just vastly less elegant than the Galilean system. You can still choose the Earth as the center of the solar system if you’re willing to do a lot of unnecessary math.

The CO2 system is wrong. Disproved. Falsified. This is an EX-science. No amount of math will make it right.

Thier model works only if all CO2 is manmade, which it is not, and CO2 greenhouse warming is linear, which it is not, and no other forces that are acting upon the planet have any consequece, which is growing stupider than previously factored.

David WhitehouseThey do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.
And what would that ‘influence’ be? And how could they [or would you] use that?

“Sean Peake says: July 4, 2011 at 12:20 pm
I see another double-down coming: the world is cooling because of the burning of fossil fuels and to stop it, we must restrict their use and tax accordingly. ”

And we could throw in 2008-2011 just for laughs.
The Warmists have a very difficult time maintaining the hypothesis of an ever increasing global temperature. Obfuscation of data will not be tolerated by every scientist regardless of their political bent or greed. The two predominate explanations for the missing incline in temperature are oceanic storage and the posit that a natural cycle is masquerading the heat. The problem with both is that these explanations were not incorporated into the models. So their Models are simply wrong. Wrong as in worthless.

‘But in the conclusion:
The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”’

When climate scientists attempt to deploy the concept “scientific hypothesis” they reveal only the grossest ignorance. The statement in quotations marks above cannot qualify as a hypothesis by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing can be inferred from it about particular events in the future. An example of a genuine scientific hypothesis is Newton’s mathematical formulation of Kepler’s Three Laws. Using them and a GPS, you can predict the phases of Venus to within minutes; that is, you can make precise predictions of particular events indefinitely into the future.

Some will attempt to defend the so-called hypothesis quoted above by interpreting it as a statistical hypothesis and lowering the standards. Doesn’t work. Genuine statistical hypotheses are deterministic and employ objective probabilities. Mendel held that children of a pure light-eyed parent and a pure dark eyed parent would have children whose eyes turned out dark by a ratio of 3 to 1. That statistical hypothesis about populations is testable and falsifiable.

All one can say about the statement in quotation marks is that it is a hunch. One can follow Bayes and use subjective probabilities to improve one’s betting behavior, but you will never get from there to science. In any case, the authors are praying that they are not demonstrably wrong rather than betting that they are right. Comment on their understanding of prayer can wait for another occasion.

We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. . . .
The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and re-move them from from the present global warm-ing/cooling trend.

Michael Jankowski said
Ok, you are allowed to present your findings, but we need you to add a statement in your conclusions to reinforce the IPCC position…”
———————————————————————–
-Big progress : some times ago it was

Ok, you are not allowed to present your findings, if we need to add a statement in your conclusions to reinforce the IPCC position…”

Climate scientists are forever confusing genuine scientific hypotheses with other kinds of statements which are not theoretic statements at all and have no place within a theory or set of hypotheses. Consider the following:

‘The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”’

As shown above, the statement quoted cannot serve as a scientific hypothesis. Rather, it is a guiding principle of research. It is a statement of their commitment to preserve the claim that, in my paraphrase, “anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations caused most of the increase in temperature” throughout all of their research. As such, it is a statement of values and belongs to policy analysis but not science. Sad to say, but I have found not one pro-CAGW climate scientist, so-called, who knows the difference between theoretic formulations and statements of value.

The authors of the above paper appear to be incapable of considering the obvious based on the observations. The IPCC extreme warming position is fundamentally incorrect. (Not surprising as the IPCC started with an agenda and the subsequent work was to support the agenda.)

The observational fact that there was an unexplained step increase in planetary temperature 1994 to 1998 and the fact that planetary temperature 1998 to 2008 has flat rather than increasing as predicted) indicates there are likely multiple fundamental errors in the general circulation models which are the basis for the extreme warming IPCC forecast. The step increase in planetary temperature 1994 to 1998 correlates with a step reduction in planetary cloud cover.

There are cycles of cooling and warming in the paleoclimatic record that correlate with multicycle solar magnetic changes. There is data and supporting analysis in published papers that the solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover. There are published papers that correlate the late 20th century warming with specific solar parameters changes (magnitude and intensity of solar wind bursts).

There are also papers that correlate planetary cloud changes and with the planetary temperature changes. There are papers that explain the mechanisms and provide specific data and analysis to support the mechanisms: 1) solar wind bursts (which removes cloud forming ions by creating a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes ions by Tinsley`s electroscavenging mechanism) and 2) changes to the extent and density of the solar heliosphere which in turn modulates the intensity and energy content of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) that strike the upper atmosphere and creating MUONs which in turn travel through the atmosphere creating multiple ions which create clouds through ion mediated nucleation.

It will be interesting to see watch this story unfold. There has been an abrupt interruption in the solar magnetic cycle. In the past the planet cooled when there was there an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle. How will the IPCC supporters explain a cooling planet?

Nice to see science is actually working. i.e. they looked at the real world, and are now positing reasons for the lack of upward warming. Could be right (sounds logical) or maybe not. But I thought that this is how science was supposed to work?

Kudos to this group of climate scientists for at least trying to figure out more of the climate puzzle.

The desperation mounts. This is setting the stage for AR5 to upgrade the LOSU (Level of Scientific Understanding) of aerosols from AR4’s “medium to low” (direct aerosols) and “low” for the cloud albedo effect (all aerosols).

(Anyone who might be superficially impressed with what appears to be an rare outbreak of humility by IPCC authors in admitting a medium/low understanding of something, should note that “low” is still an exaggeration with respect to the more honest position of “nil” )

Already HadCRUT temps are outside sensible confidence intervals for the multi-model A1B (see Lucia’s), and things won’t be going their way any time soon, particularly as 2011 is shaping up to be a fairly cold year globally. So they simply have to go for the aerosols. Nothing else will keep the show on the road.

Dang Chinese–if they’d just clean up their soot, their CO2 would let “A” global warming continue like the models said. Leave it to the Chinese to mess things up.

(Does this let those dang Chinese off the hook? Maybe Australia should start burning some of their own coal rather than ship billions of tons of it to China–and they should take the soot collectors off their furnaces, too!)

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).

Isn’t that backwards? Watch, I can do this, too.

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to a combination of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd increasing the amount of lightning necessary to kill da wabbit and Leif Svalgaard’s infamous ‘little green men'(14).”

Anyhow, if they really have found that there was no increase, then this part is interesting, “The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors…“. How much did these natural factors contribute to warming?

Sadly, they pretty much all have to do that to have any hope of achieving more funding.

I work at the NSF (not in a scientific capacity) and, from time to time, the scientists that get funding from NSF present information about their findings ( it’s a wonderful job perk) to anyone at NSF who wants to listen. I listened to a young PhD presenting his research about temperatures in Antarctica last year. His findings showed that temps in certain areas of Antarctica were actually dropping, not increasing. I felt really bad for him because, at the end of his talk he seemed to feel obligated to say something like, “My research shows that temps are dropping, but, I must be wrong because it disagrees with the idea of global warming increasing temps.”

Please repeat after me. We’ve had 300 years of warming since the Al Gore’s ancester invented the themometer, three hundred years of uneven warming. During each of those past three centuries we’ve had many, many hottest years ever and, at least, one or two hottest decades ever. It happened again recently. What a surprise!

Didn’t Dr Mann say that if temps were unchanged (or didn’t increase) for a period of 10 years then he would have to consider his theories of ‘Global Warming’ falsified. Now we have over 20 years of ‘stable’, not increasing temps, where is Dr Mann?

Uh, no, there was no El Nino in 2010. There was a very strong La Nina. That is why the fact that 2010 was at least as hot as 1998 was so extraordinary.

REPLY: Ah, no Tenney, sorry, you are wrong as usual.

Many press reports said that 2010 was a near-record breaking year despite the cooling influence of a La Nina later in the year. What was omitted however was mention of the fact that the reason why the year was marginally warmer than previous years was because of the warming El Nino at the beginning of 2010.

Contrary to press reports the evidence is that 2010 was a year no different from all of the years 2001-2009 with the exception of a moderate to strong El Nino that elevated temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere’s Spring, and a cooling La Nina later in the year.

This is 2011: All predictions made by the warmists since 1980’s have gone wrong. When are they going to admit this? When are the politicians going to realise this? When is the main stream media going to wake up and tell the world?

I did’nt get much encouragement from this paper given that it is imbued with hubris. When you see statements like the one below you realize that these modelers are just as deluded as the others:

“……..devise policy that complies with the objective of Article 2 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to stabilize “greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in
the climate system.”

Ongoing caution to commenters equating the two Michael Manns mentioned in this post! Remember that ad hominem has backsplash; Much as many in here abhor the ongoing circus of assertions and retractions that climate science seems to be good at, deriding on the basis that this Dr. Mann is the Hockey Mann is horse hockey. Someone mentioned calm restraint above. That would be rather good to keep in mind, methinks.

Didn’t Dr Mann say that if temps were unchanged (or didn’t increase) for a period of 10 years then he would have to consider his theories of ‘Global Warming’ falsified. Now we have over 20 years of ‘stable’, not increasing temps, where is Dr Mann?

ISTR it was Phil Jones, and it was fifteen years (but I might be wrong). If I’m not wrong, then there’s only two to go until they extend the “it’s not warming if …” criteria by another fifteen years.

Its Global Climate Hiatus! Unprecendented Stability! The CO2 is so thick that the climate has seized up and natural variation has ceased! A sure sign of coming Planetary Fever, and now it will be much worse than we thought because, as I saw in a comment once, ‘climate is like a spring’ and now it has all this pent up energy (the missing heat).

Alternatively, it also seems possible that, despite the planet-hating Americans, Chinese and Indians, the Kyoto Protocol has caused this stability and therefore we need more of it. The EU has shown the way!

In any case, we should all know by now that the absence of any evidence of warming is not evidence of the absence of warming.

i thought this AGW was supposed to build on itself with the ever increasing CO2 levels like an out of control freight train running down the tracks, so what is powerful enough to move things in the other direction?

John Baglien (at 12:31 pm above) points to the element of the argument of Kaufmann’s paper that is most telling of the corrupt condition of peer-review science in this field at this time, viz: the hypothesis of AGW, that is explicitly shown to be under strain from its inability to explain observations, is nonetheless taken as the null hypothesis.

It is as though scepticism about AGW claims is not a condition of doubt but a positive position that requires evidence/proof. Thus, it is not the AGW modelling that is in doubt, but rather the 100 years of science supporting the idea of natural climate change on an historical time scale.

Thus, the work of Bruckner, Huntington, De Geer, Brooks, Lamb and so many more since, the accumulated evidence of natural climatic variation and change, this is in doubt. Why? Why is natural climate change not the given and AGW the hypothesis requiring proof?

This is not due to any challenges to the sum of the evidence, because no one is challenging that. So what has cause peer-review science to turned the tables on natural climate change?

It has all the appearance of an engineered forgetting. And the success of this engineered forgetting is evidenced by the fact that most scientists reading this paper, most reviewers, would not even notice the absurdity at the very foundation of the argument of this paper.

The difference between the 1998 El Nino and the 2010 El Nino is that 2010, while it was not as strong as 1998, it lasted longer. So the impact was that the peak global temperature in 2010 never reached as high as 1998 but the average temperature for the year reached or just barely exceeded 1998 because of the broad rise and fall of the event.

I thought the vast majority of increase in heat was due to increase water vapor. Like, twice the amount of forcing as C02. It seems the decrease in water vapor in the stratosphere does contradict that assumption. Hasn’t that always been the big bugaboo?

In any event, the real answer is the models failed to predict current temperatures. They were wrong, end of story.

So, essentially, yet another paper that claim that the slight temperature rise of the 20th century might probably be due to anthropogenic emissions, yet fails to present any actual proof of it.

Here’s a quick and dirty, stab in the dark, conclusion of a study that might yet be made: Some tax funded climate scientist may be insane, without actually knowing they have gone completely bonkers on taxpayers time. 0_o

This paper by Kaufman et. al. is a weak attempt to postpone recognition that the theory that CO2 increases can cause harmful warming has failed. Warmists have argued that although the sun may have driven climate in the past its effects are now completely over-ridden by changes in CO2 levels. Now we are to believe that the almighty CO2 caused warming has been stopped dead in its tracks by the change in Chinese sulfur emissions over the past ten years?! This paper should not have been published without its considering the more obvious explanations for the end of the warming trend despite continued CO2 increases (i.e. CO2 does not significantly drive climate, it is due to the end of the solar “modern maximum” and the present downturn in solar activity, etc.).

Temperatures (T) didnt rise between 1998-2008 because the PDO shifted back to negative, and the lag effects from the active sun 1750-1950 finally waned out (same as late summer warmth lag, late daily warmth after noon). The weak effect from C02, observable in lack of warming during 1945-1975 within a negative PDO, is still weak from 1998-2008.

Future predictions. T wont rise much, or more likely be flat to negative in next 10-20 years, with negative PDO and weak sun. T rise from doubling c02 is about 0.1-0.5 degrees C, so no need for alarm. Warmists will bemoan lack of T rise in next 20 years until they finally figure out that climate sensitivity to c02 is weak, but strong with the sun. Wwarmign in late 20th century was mainly due to lag effects from active sun 1750-1950, not c02.

Notice the article mentions “Surface Temperatures”, which are largely the result of solar spectrum energy reaching the earth surface; about 73% of which is ocean, and getting stored there to ultimately register as a surface temperature. And as Dr Leif constantly reminds us, not much has happened to TSI, so we shouldn’t expect much surface temperature change.

GHGs on the other hand mostly affect atmospheric temperatures; and the LWIR re-emission from the atmosphere, is not even detectable as heat at the surface, and mostly results in increased amount of solar blocking H2O in the atmosphere, from enhanced surface evaporation.

if you read here long enough you will hear people say.. Its the sun! C02 isnt everything!
well, there is some truth in that.
The temperature we see is the result of MANY forcings. c02 represents less than 50% of all forcings.
You will also hear people say what about the negative forcings?
they are important too.
You will hear people say ..what about sunshine!.. well yes, things that block sunshine are important.

Since 1998 the authors sum up the pluses and the minuses.

1. Sun: suns gone quiet. We all agree the sun matters. So do the scientists! and they put a number on it.
2. Air pollution! yes, particles that block the sun are important! so they look at sulfur.
3. Natural variability! yes, they look at that too.

When it’s all said and done, the net forcing over this short term has been negative.
C02 isnt everything. over the short term, the short termed additional positve forcing from C02
(.13w) can be Offset by all those other factors that people have pointed at.

It didnt warm because C02 is NOT the only forcing. In fact its less than 50% of all forcings.
It can be overwhelmed in the short term by other forcings.. like a quiet sun, or like more sulfur in the air. Those observations confirm the theory. they confirm the theory because the theory says the final temp is a function of ALL the forcings.

I can tell this is not a scientific paper by the second paragraph. It says: “Recent analysis address the source of skepticism…”, the skepticism being caused by no warming the last decade. Their stated goal is to silence the AGW critics, not objectively investigate climate variability. Not science at all.

So then they take their simulation and tweak various forcings until they get the result they want.

What is particularly amusing is that, based on their conclusions, we have solved the AGW problem! Temperature goes down, just pump out more CO2. Temperature goes up, just pump out more sulfur emissions. One offsets the other. There’s no need to shift to non CO2 producing energy after all. In fact, it would be a bad thing to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations” as long as China is pumping out all these cooling pollutants.

We acknowledge that temperatures haven’t risen to the extent we had hypothesized they would despite our best efforts at adjusting the record. So now we must rationalize ways in which the impact of human CO2 emissions might be “hidden” by other things in order to preserve our hypothesis and the policy decisions that depend on it.

I strongly suspect that the PDO did not shift to negative until 2007/2008 timeframe.
It will take another 5 years or more to get a good look at where the cycle plunged negative.
The PDO is supposed to be a 30 to 35 year cycle, and 1978-1998 is too short to fit that bill, so there is a problem: Either the definition of 30 to 35 years is wrong, or it’s too early to tell.
Look at the PDO graphs and see what I mean.

“….or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.”

I estimate with 95% confidence level that the CAGW proponents would not have made the climate sensitivity too small. So with an even higher confidence level, the climate sensitivity figure used by alarmists is unquestionably too high. This is at least slightly better science than we usually see from the faithful.

On another note. I see that Channel 4 in the AMSU satellite which senses temps in the atmosphere failed in 2008. My paranoia resurfaces when I see this kind of thing, eventhough I realize hardware wears out. Why do these things happen when things point to a strong cooling trend. We have seen a similar hiatus in sea level measurments when sea level rise began decelerating strongly. We had to wait 6 months while it was rationalized a tweaked into a “virtual sea level” measurement with an annual factor added on. We have seen this when 1998 did not surpass 1934 for highest 20th Century temp. A series of “recalculations” were made to depress 1934’s record to make 1998 the highest (there were even emails from Hansen’s assistant detailing the devious work he had tried to do to achieve this. We saw this in 2010 when they declared a new record using half the year – the second half cooled and ruined it. Now we are seeing that this cooling was because of a broken channel in AMSU. This paper is preparing us for the “repaired” record from 2008 that will show that (as they assert in the paper) that since 2008 it has resumed warming. We have to stop letting Colonel Sanders take care of our chickens for us.

Abstract:
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.

And water wise………………..

“It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.”http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

The models have a problem yet the science is settled. What a bloody mess! Goodnight all. ;o)

Crosspatch – in addition to being much stronger than the 09/10 El Nino, the 97/98 El Nino was actually two months longer than the 09/10 El Nino (according to ONI, the standard metric for ENSO), so you are going to have to come up with another explanation for why the average global temperatures for the two ENSO events were so similar…

Let us all now watch and see just how quickly Tamino and others will change from vehemently denying that there has been any pause at all in the trend of global warming, to claiming that this pause in warming since 1998 was what has always been predicted by the climate models, and indeed is further proof (if further proof were needed) of how right the models have been all along.

“…‘It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998.”

That is not what the paper says. The paper has a cut off date of 2008, it is not commenting on tempatures since then and given that it is 2011 the 2008 cut-off is out of date…”

So, upon actually READING the paper, they have this:

“…Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008. Furthermore, global surface temperature declines 0.2 °C between 2005 and 2008. Although
temperature increases in 2009 and 2010, the lack of a clear increase in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2008, combined with rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, prompts some popular commentators to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface temperature…”

So they say that there has been LITTLE warming between 1998 and 2008, with COOLING between 2005 and 2008.

And, there is a mention of temp increases for 2009 and 2010.

To me, what’s more surprising is their adding NEWSPAPER articles as references, and using a statement from globalresearch.ca as a scientific reference.

For 2009, the anomaly was 0.443; for 2010, it was 0.479. For the first 5 months of 2011, it is 0.302. So if we do the following calculations: (0.479 x 12) + (0.302 x 5)/17 = 0.427. So the average for the 17 months from January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2011 is 0.427 which is LESS than the 2009 value of 0.443. Can we therefore be justified in claiming that at the 95% significance level, there has been no warming for 16 years and 5 months?

“Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out of date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade”
Oh yes there is!
We don’t know of any other physical mechanism that can explain the stalling of GAT during the greatest ever increase of Anthropogenic Carbon Pollution (ACP) ever; ergo
it must be worse than we thought.
We knew already that Global Warming and Cooling is directly attributable to the activities of Man but now we have robust evidence that Global stasis is, also, a direct result of Fossil Fuel greed!
Yup, without a shadow of a doubt, it’s even worse(r) than we got funded to confirm.
:(

IMHO what is happening is this: Whenever a sceptic comes up with damaging information or a damaging argument – such as the global temperature has not increased for 10 years – “they” get a paper published which can generate a contra headline – such as the non-increase in global temperature is compatible with AGW. The fact that the paper is total crap is completely immaterial. The result is that when a sceptic talks to an AGWer, the AGWer can bog him/her down with counter-arguments based on peer-reviewed papers. By the time the poor unfortunate sceptic has debunked just one of the many crap papers, everyone else will have stopped listening. Or they may even be persuaded that the AGWer is right, because there can’t possibly be that many crap papers.

We have to take our scientific arguments directly to the public. Fortunately our arguments are obviously worthy, and the public are turning away from AGW in droves. But unfortunately, we still have to prise our politicians away from their vision of bucketloads of money. That will be very difficult, and once they get their dirty little paws on some of that money, they can then afford to buy enough PR to keep it flowing in.

Dang Chinese–if they’d just clean up their soot, their CO2 would let “A” global warming continue like the models said. Leave it to the Chinese to mess things up.

(Does this let those dang Chinese off the hook? Maybe Australia should start burning some of their own coal rather than ship billions of tons of it to China–and they should take the soot collectors off their furnaces, too!)

That’s OK, the Chinese are about to fail again by building 400 new nuclear plants over the next 30 years. So don’t worry, they can keep being the scapegoat again, and thus the Western Powers need to cut even harder to compensate.

Strap yourselves in ladies and gentlement as we re-enter the realitysphere. Things will be a bit bumpy for the next couple of years as bits of AGW theory hit the fuselage but, being essentially intellectual origami and not your actual eagles, turkeys or even chickens, there is no substantive risk.

At some stage there will be reputational innards and lots of feathers all over the place when the penny drops for the mainstream media and then the general public terminate their suspension of disbelief. It will not be pretty but the schadenfreude will be mesmerising. Forget Chappaquiddick, forget Weiner, forget Arnie and his Shrivergate, hell forget MIchael Jackson. This will be the real thing.

It is encouraging that this was published in PNAS, even though the authors found it necessary to defend CAGW. If CAGW proves not to be the case, the admissions of error will be presented as improvements of existing models. This paper just provides a preview. I doubt that there will be widespread admissions of error.

Some of you people need to read the paper properly. What they are saying is that human activities can influence climate but it is not as simple as ‘increase Co2 levels and temps go up’. The paper is saying that there are many other moderating effects some natural and some human. The planet has the ability to moderate our influence. They also look at the counter balancing effect of sulfur emissions largely from coal burning and the effect of reducing pollution generally, both of which have had a cooling effect. So increases in sulfur levels and decreases in particulate pollution result in cooling. Since coal produces both CO2 and sulfur they effectively cancel each other to a large extent. They also look at the effect of one of the other main greenhouse gases – water vapour – and have found that reductions in its concentrations have a profound effect.
Summary – our planetary system is very complex and any simplistic explanation ie increases in CO2 mean increases in temps, is unscientific and can lead to false assumptions

Tenney Naumer says: “Uh, no, there was no El Nino in 2010. There was a very strong La Nina. That is why the fact that 2010 was at least as hot as 1998 was so extraordinary.”

Tenney, to expand on Anthony’s reply, it’s always best to consider both the development and decay years of an ENSO event, and when discussing the ENSO event, to list both years in which the event occurred, like the 2009/10 El Nino, and the 2010/11 La Nina. And you also have to consider that there’s typically at least a one season lag between the variation in equatorial Pacific SST anomalies and the global temperature response to it, meaning that if the El Nino and La Nina events were of similar strengths, the 2009/10 El Nino should have had a greater impact on the year 2010 than the 2010/11 La Nina did. But then you also have to consider the relative strengths of the El Nino and La Nina event. The 2009/10 El Nino peaked at an ONI SST anomaly of 1.8 deg C, but the 2010/11 La Nina peaked at a -1.4 deg C. That way you won’t look so foolish when you come here and spout off something that appears nonsensical to those who understand.

Also, your thought that the global surface temperature response to a La Nina event is the opposite of an El Nino eventis flawed. ENSO is a process. The variations in central equatorial Pacific SST anomalies that people use as a proxy for ENSO event strength and frequency only represent one of the effects of the ENSO process. Those variations do not represent the ENSO process. And anyone who understands that can see through your ENSO argument instantly.

I stand corrected. So, then, 2010 was an inbetween year and not an El Nino year?

btw, I live in a region of Brazil that has winters. Except this year, the temperatures now are the same as they were in December. I’ve only lived here for 14 years, but the old timers tell me they also have never seen the flowering trees in full bloom in the middle of our winter. Our trees that normally drop their leaves in the fall have not dropped them at all. My plumeria tree dropped its leaves but then put out leaves and flowers again going into winter and has kept them.

This has been a gradual process. I have a pomegranate tree, and during one mild winter about 4 years ago, it decided to try to fruit. Then the next year, it gave fruit twice. The next year, it tried three times. Now, it just doesn’t stop flowering and fruiting. This is completely abnormal for this region.

No one is complaining about the weather. This region is normally miserably damp, dark and drizzly during the months of June and July with lots of mold and people who catch pneumonia. Now it is dry and sunny and warm just like it has been all year so far.

No one knows what winter blooming will do to insects and birds that require certain blooming plants during the spring.

Denise /#comment-694292, H. Lamb was the director at CRU (pre-Tom Wiggley and Phil Jones) and was trying to establish a “natural variability” baseline in order to distinguish the “signal” of man-kinds influence. This work remains incomplete (unfortunately). Until that is done, there is no certainty that anything we are seeing is due to man. To come to any other conclusion is not solid science, IMHO.

“No one knows what winter blooming will do to insects and birds that require certain blooming plants during the spring.” Because they have never seen anything like this throughout their entire species history, and yet they remain. COME ON!!! Where are your critical thinking skills?

Prime Minister Gillard has assured us that by 2070 Sydney will have a tropical climate and the Opera House will be under water. It must be true then. Better get a move on climate – you’re running out of time and the PM has spoken.

Judith Curry also notes the paper: An explanation(?) for lack of global warming since 1998.
Discussion rages hot and heavy, with ‘Joshua’ vociferously defending the authors and maligning everyone else, as usual.
Judith notes the counter-intuitive logical extrapolation, that all that needs to be done to defeat warming is to encourage China to continue burning coal.

Watch the Warmist reprogram thier models every time they go astray, move the goalposts, then backpeddle some more is like watching addicted gamblers. The big jackpot is just another paycheck away. Just one more bet, you’ll see. Just one more paper, one more adjustment should do the trick.

Some of you people need to read the paper properly. What they are saying is that human activities can influence climate but it is not as simple as ‘increase Co2 levels and temps go up’. The paper is saying that there are many other moderating effects some natural and some human.

Correct, Denise, that is exactly what the paper is saying. That (1) human activities can affect climate…

“Witches are so called on account of the blackness of their guilt, that is to say, their deeds are more evil than those of any other malefactors.They stir up and confound the elements by the aid of the devil, and arouse terrible hailstorms and tempests.”

But (2) sometimes we can point the finger of blame at nature…

“There are also natural harms which in some manner depend upon the conjunction of heavenly bodies, such as dearth, drought, tempests, and similar effects of nature.”Malleus Maleficarum, part 1, question 2 (1486)

Climate “science” hasn’t changed much, has it?

The reason it hasn’t warmed recently is simply because witches aren’t the ONLY forcing. In fact they represent less than 50% of all forcings. Witchcraft can be overwhelmed in the short term by other forcings, like prayer, rotten sage thrown into a stream (op.cit.), the Devil putting more sulfur into the air, along with the natural conjunction of the heavenly bodies. These observations confirm the theory of witches: they confirm the theory because the theory says climate is a function of ALL of these forcings!
/parody

I’m thinking the ‘experts’ are worried that the sun may go into a prolonged minimum followed by cooling which would most likely devastate what’s left of their movement for global development, nation wealth equalization, and massive control over our lives. As such, I think they are going to start blaming other things for whatever cooling may happen such as sulfur emissions, volcanos, and anything else they can find. Anything to take the blame off of the sun.

Watch the Warmist reprogram thier models every time they go astray, move the goalposts, then backpeddle some more is like watching addicted gamblers. The big jackpot is just another paycheck away. Just one more bet, you’ll see. Just one more paper, one more adjustment should do the trick.

We are astounded that the Academic departmental affiliations of these authors are in Social Sciences! Economics, Economics, Geography? These are soft-sciences. What is the relevance of Economics to the physics of the Earth’s climate? What about Geophysics, Oceanography, or even Atmospheric Sciences? We would give more credence to people with knowledge and a track record of achievement in relevant hard sciences. No wonder the Russian Academy of Science laughs at the West and its bevy of wide eyed AGW believers. A sad state of affairs for the American Scientist. Our profession is in danger of becoming a joke. Freedom of inquiry meets “Are you a climate denier?”

Smoke belching from Asia’s rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur’s cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.

The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland’s University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fueled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.

Sulphur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space.

You see it’s all China’s fault for using so much sulfur laden coal. Thus China now has an acceptable “green” excuse for consuming more fossil fuels than the US and still not be held accountable to the Cap and Trade scam. With this excuse, the AGW cult believers now can continue bambozzling governments and scientists all over the world while they rake in billions more dollars for further useless studies and restrictive regulations micromanaging people’s lives and businesses.

So by implication of this study, the timing of the post 1970s rise in GAT to 1998 would be to US Russia and Europe curbing sulfur pollution (allowing CO2 to increase GAT) at which time the Chinese at the end of the 1990s started dumping sulfur back into the air causing a drop in GAT.

Questions: What was the amount per year of sulfur put into the atmosphere from 1940 to 1980 by the US and Europe? What was the amount per year of sulfur put into the atmosphere by China from 1980 to now?

just realised u had put up peter stott’s comment, anthony. apologies.
what would the media do without the phrase “many scientists say”?

3 July: Sacramento Bee: Paresh Dave: Coastal California developers now must consider sea-level rise
Many scientists also say global climate change will bring more frequent storms of great intensity…
Former Sierra Club California coastal programs leader Mark Massara is skeptical that all of Johnson’s project will remain usable by 2100..http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/03/3744307/coastal-california-developers.html

“blah blah blah — and the conclusion quotation: “Long term warming will continue unless emissions are reduced,” said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at Britain’s Met Office.
”
It only seems to be emissions such as these that keep Global Warming going.

Don’t worry… just read another peer-reviewed article blaming the recent cooling on sulfur dioxide emissions from all the coal-fired power plants in Asia. They claim as soon as China starts cleaning up the sulfur emissions we are in for a massive heat wave. The solutions however remain the same as you might guess… shut down all coal and fossil fuel power plants now or we are all going to die.

whether you believe that carbon dioxide is causing warming or not could you please send this to a scientist to review.

Thermal emissions warming.

The following study done by myself and assisted by a scientist is only to demonstrate that the warming can be mostly if not all explained by thermal emmissions or basically a large scale heat island study using energy use data. This is not intended to give any exact warming extent as average values are used and wind land cover etc are not taken into account (this is virtually impossible despite the claims of organisations such as NASA or CSIRO) Also the energy use is not constant and will have greater effects when weather is cold and heating is more widely used.

The energy use we shall use is the total annual use of fossil fuels and nuclear. These 2 energy sources are being released by humans.

The following formula was used. It basically is working out the amount of energy in continuous watt output per hour per metre squared and then calculating out the expected change in temperature by using the average input of energy from the sun using Albedo and Suns energy per square according to NASA. This is not intended to give any accurate prediction but just a general prediction.

Mtoe* 11.63*1 000 000 000 000 (conversion of Mtoe to Watts)*0.7 (energy available as thermal energy)/365/24(conversion to Watt output per hour)/land area in square metres(to give energy output per square metre per hour)*Kelvin 287/342/.703(to give estimated temperature change where Kelvin 287 is earth average temperature 342 is available energy from sun and 0.703 is the amount available to the troposphere after the albedo)

After doing these calculations if the air never left the country and everything else such as albedo remained constant mentioned these would be the approximate temperature changes.

Conclusions: If a climate model printout has not taken this into account the printouts highest value shall be the greater of the recycling price to the use as a biofuel (but watch out for the thermal emissions). Most fuel use is over land and in the northern hemisphere so this is where the expected highest results are likely. Anecdotely this could be the effect in the antarctic peninsular but it is very difficult to get any fuel use figures. If this is the case the increases are likely to be in summer as this is when the scientists travel there.

Note; The energy available is a very conservative estimation based on average power station efficiency and vehicle efficiency and uses eg. domestic use of energy is far higher with average households spending over 50% of energy dirrectly for heating (hot water cooking and space heating). The amount of energy from sun will not be accurate as the albedo and latitudes on the earth could have a big effect.

These people also have not identified what the balance of power was over this time frame. It is entirely possible to absorb more energy than is radiated into space over an interval of time without warming the air. However, you are on the hook to locate that “missing energy”. Because we can’t find it doesn’t mean it isn’t there any more than we can assume it is there but hidden. That is the problem, isn’t it? The temperature is stable but we don’t know what the energy balance is, and to the best of my knowledge, we don’t know how to know what that balance is within an ignorable margin of error.

That, btw, is the fraud that is climate alarmism. Skeptics are not better off – if they can’t show that the balance is negative or balanced they’re not noticing the kings new clothes.

LMAO! Read this in the various UK papers this morning and into my mind jumped Trenberth’s “travesty we can’t account for the lack of warming” comment! (I have always wondered why he could not just use the word….Cooling)!

I bet he feels much more comfortable this morning!

Hope you lot on the other side of the pond had a great day and the BBQ;s were a success.

In my mind, God willing, “anthropogenic global warming” ceases on November 3, 2012. You know what I mean.

I do know what you mean. Michele Bachmann has always been against Cap N Trade. She has never believed in disasters from CO2. Pray God, President Bachmann!

Here she is in 2006, when “An Inconvenient Truth” was in theaters, back before there as a WattsUpWithThat, back before ClimateGate, she said this:

She says the worst offender for regulations hurting American business is the EPA, and “…..I introduced the ‘Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act’!…….. President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want in the United states of America!”

Part of the spin the Australian Government is using to sell it’s carbon dioxide tax is that China is a a reformed and environmentally responsible country, closing down dirty coal power stations to reduce “carbon pollution”. The truth is of course that they are building new much bigger, more efficient, clean coal power stations to replace old dirty ones. In the paper referred Robert K. Kaufmann et al. claim growth in Chinese power stations have been responsible for a large growth in sulfur emissions since 1998. But unless China’s new “clean” coal stations are emitting more sulfur per unit of coal consumed than the old “dirty” ones, then the proportions of sulfur and carbon dioxide emitted should be the same, or one would expect relatively lower in sulfur in the case of the new clean stations. The use of high or low sulfur coal could influence this of course but overall it would seem reasonable to assume a similar sulfur levels.
If we are to accept that the paper’s conclusions are “consistent with the current understanding” (i.e. retrospectively adjusted virtual reality) it seems we must accept also that Chinese efforts to reduce air pollution from their many new “clean” power stations are not only less effective than emission control technology of the latter decades of the twentieth century, but in fact much worse, certainly in terms of sulfur.
Maybe this heralds a new climate change hypothesis – “the enhanced sulfur cooling effect”.

Anthropogenic or natural forcing
If all of the anthropogenic forcing (sulphur and CO2 radiative) is disposed of and replaced with natural forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – PDO than similar result is obtained.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AorN-F.htm

(Reuters) – Smoke belching from Asia’s rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur’s cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.

So now they tell us that Global Warming was caused by the “Clean Air Act”

Tenney Nahum says:
July 4, 2011 at 07:02
There is another Brazil? We are going through one of the coldest winters in decades. Loss of crops, deaths from cold, large areas with freezing temperatures, maximum of 24 C in the southern Amazon. Where do you live?

M.A.Vukcevic says: “If all of the anthropogenic forcing (sulphur and CO2 radiative) is disposed of and replaced with natural forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – PDO than similar result is obtained.”

Please describe the “natural forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation”. That is, please describe the process/mechanism through which the PDO could be responsible for the rise and fall in global surface temperatures. The correct answer should be, there isn’t one.

@Jim Ryan, Exactly the opposite in fact. I’ve been lurking here for some time and I see more and more of what are considered in Wikipedia terms “Reliable sources”. They have peer reviewed papers that say one thing, you have peer reviewed papers that say slightly different.

I’m no expert on climate science I’m an engineer by trade but I’m also quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia. I see articles that have been edited at will by the likes of Connolly to name one, using these same guidelines of reliable sources and venerability that have allowed them to word the climate change articles as they see fit. Though I lean to sceptical with my beliefs about some of the claims, I’m often left wondering with the expertise that is on these talk pages why isn’t there a concerted effort at balancing the argument, if the sources meet the guidelines then why isn’t it in there?

Wuwt is bandied around as being the blog in the know so to speak, and I often read on these pages the howls of consternation about the perceived indoctrination of kids to climate change and my thought is what is the first port of call for people who want to find out more information. Wuwt is good but it ain’t that good and certainly isn’t average Joe Bloggs first stop off point, it’s Wikipedia.

I didn’t write my first post very clearly, but if there are peer reviewed sources that say different and that 2010 isn’t the second hottest year on record, why not have at it and get the information where it’ll really make a difference.

Bob Tisdale says: July 5, 2011 at 3:57 amPlease describe the “natural forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation”. That is, please describe the process/mechanism through which the PDO could be responsible for the rise and fall in global surface temperatures. The correct answer should be, there isn’t one.

It is not the PDO data as such that is involved in any way in the graph as shown by black dashed line:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AorN-F.htm
it is in fact a process to which the PDO most likely is related as shown herehttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO1.htm
There are well known physical processes operating in both the North Pacific and North Atlantic, well capable of affecting the climate events in both oceans, through the oceanic currents heat transfer, in the relevant areas (as mentioned above). First differential (difference) of the datasets correlates well with climatic indices known as the PDO and AMO.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A&P.htm
How the PDO and AMO are calculated I am not certain and it is not very important to me; one thing is certain that if proved that my unprocessed data are relevant (and subsequently given appropriate numerical weighting), then climate science will have good base from which to start appraising the true natural drivers of the climate change.
I have collected lot of historical data dispersed through various institutions, all publicly available some on line, some in various printed publications, put it all together and developed the datasets referring to the N. Atlantic and N. Pacific. This is a purely personal effort, at personal expense, so I am under no obligation to release details for time being, since I am preparing a more extensive publication.
Similar attitude is taken by the ‘CLOUD’ project researchers from CERN, who may not be self financing as I am.

Bob Tisdale says: July 5, 2011 at 3:57 am
…….
My post:Anthropogenic or natural forcing
If all of the anthropogenic forcing (sulphur and CO2 radiative) is disposed of and replaced with natural forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – PDO then similar result is obtained.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AorN-F.htm
It states :
replaced with natural forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – PDO
not:
replaced with natural forcing by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – PDO

M.A.Vukcevic says: “There are well known physical processes operating in both the North Pacific and North Atlantic, well capable of affecting the climate events in both oceans, through the oceanic currents heat transfer, in the relevant areas (as mentioned above). First differential (difference) of the datasets correlates well with climatic indices known as the PDO and AMO.”

Saying there are “well known physical processes” does not describe how the PDO is responsible for the rise and fall in global surface temperatures as your graph represents. Saying there are correlations doesn’t do it either. Also, the North Atlantic is not represented by the PDO, so including it in your discussion appears to be misdirection–smoke and mirrors. What’s the process or mechanism through which the “PDO forcing” could be responsible for the rises and falls? It’s a simple question. Describing the process or mchanism should be just as easy.

My biggest worry is what happens after this global anthropogenic warming is shown to be mistaken. Previous polluters, like the ones that nearly destroyed the Willamette River, will return to their old ways of “throwing tires into river”. Mercury levels are still so high in the main channel that one must limit their intake of fish and be very diligent in removing the fatty strips from the fillets.

This bandwagon has been the worst thing that could happen to the once diligent effort that was being made to clean up the planet.

As you know, Brazil is an enormous country, with many different regions and their respective climates. I live in Vitória da Conquista, Bahia, which is near the plateau of Chapada Diamantina. The altitude here is somewhere between 850 and 900 meters, depending on the source.

Southern Brazil is indeed experiencing very cold temperatures. But many parts of the rest of Brazil are experiencing high temperatures. The Brazilian meteorological page appears to be offline right now, but it will come back. This is the link to my city’s weather forecast:

Polistra, (polistra says: July 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm), I’m glad to find someone who shares my view that CAGW is a new Ptolemaic system, an intellectual conceit to defend political power. I have to disagree however and say the Ptolemaic system is “wrong”, as it is inconsistent with everthing else we observe about gravity and momentum.

Tenney Naumer says:
July 5, 2011 at 6:50 am
South, Southeast and Midwest and southern Amazonia are braving the cold. Your region (northeast) never gets cold. Summer (now) means dry, winter means rain. alias minimum of 12C today did what for the people of the region is freezing.

Excellent paper – moreover as AGW “scientists” begin to understand the chances of Obama being re-elected are somewhere between slim and none we may well see more actual science once again coming to the forefront. That is if any of those “scientists” even want a grant from a republican administration for the remaining years of their lives they better show actual science or perish the though actually work for a living. And I suspect a whole lot of “green” Obama monstrosities are gonna go the way of the dinosaurs come 2012. Who said there wasn’t a God?

Temperatures (T) didnt rise between 1998-2008 because the PDO shifted back to negative, and the lag effects from the active sun 1750-1950 finally waned out (same as late summer warmth lag, late daily warmth after noon). The weak effect from C02, observable in lack of warming during 1945-1975 within a negative PDO, is still weak from 1998-2008.

Future predictions. T wont rise much, or more likely be flat to negative in next 10-20 years, with negative PDO and weak sun. T rise from doubling c02 is about 0.1-0.5 degrees C, so no need for alarm. Warmists will bemoan lack of T rise in next 20 years until they finally figure out that climate sensitivity to c02 is weak, but strong with the sun. Wwarmign in late 20th century was mainly due to lag effects from active sun 1750-1950, not c02.

regards,

Actually 1950-2000 was the most active sun in the 400 record of sunspot counts. The period is called “The Modern Maximum”. It appears to have ended now. I’m pretty close to certain at this point most of the warming since 1970 was due to the modern maximum. I was just waiting for Svensmark to confirm via experiment (which he did this year) his cosmic-ray cloud seeding hypothesis. It’s all over for AGW except for the crying. Get ready for the cold and the snow and the falling line (chorus: hide the decline).

R Taylor says:
July 5, 2011 at 7:31 am
“Polistra, (polistra says: July 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm), I’m glad to find someone who shares my view that CAGW is a new Ptolemaic system, an intellectual conceit to defend political power. I have to disagree however and say the Ptolemaic system is “wrong”, as it is inconsistent with everthing else we observe about gravity and momentum.”

You’re wrong to disagree. Previous poster was correct. Ptolemaic astronomy could accurately predict positions of stars and moons and planets but the math was complex, contorted, and got more complex & contorted with each discovery of new objects. The center of the universe is relative and if you want to name the earth as the center that’s as good as any other place although no longer the usual choice in science but still is for many religions.

Technically the earth doesn’t orbit the sun. The sun and earth orbit about a common center of mass, sometimes called the barycenter, which is not precisely the center of the sun. As the difference in mass between two objects decreases the barycenter moves towards the halfway point between them. For most (but not all) practical purposes the earth can be said to orbit the sun. Three or more body problems become notoriously difficult to solve and mathematical shortcuts are taken that (usually, depending on precision needed) give practical working results. We have no theory of gravity, by the way. All we have are empirically derived formulas that, most of the time, yield practical results. However, at the boundaries of our empirical observations at the largest and smallest scales anomalies exist. Mention “the angular momentum problem” to an astronomer who thinks we know it all to elicit some angst.

Another anomaly that’s been known for some time now is that the farthest manmade objects from the earth, Voyagers I and II, just now existing the heliosphere into true interstellar space aren’t quite where our equations of gravity predicted they should be. There’s also some discrepancy in the outputs of their radiothermal electric power supplies which aren’t satisfactorily resolved and could be explained by a slightly non-constant rate of radioactive decay where that rate changes with distance from the sun. And no one has a clue how gravity behaves at quantum scale distance. Mysteries abound. We don’t have all the answers. Not even close. We have working hypothesis that, for most practical purposes, allow us to design devices that work well enough in our local region of space and time. We have approximations of reality but theory is still lacking. We put a man on the moon and safely returned him home without any reliance on general relativity – classical Newtonian physics was accurate enough in that case. On the other hand the Global Positioning System wouldn’t work worth a fig without taking effects of general relativity into account. And on yet another hand general relativity wasn’t good enough to predict where the Voyager satellites would be right now.

“What’s the process or mechanism through which the “PDO forcing” could be responsible for the rises and falls? It’s a simple question. Describing the process or mchanism should be just as easy.”

It is indeed easy. The sun heats the ocean and the ocean heats the atmosphere. If the ocean surface is warmer the atmosphere will follow like a dog on a leash.

What no one can explain is why the PDO has the period that it does, why its period varies to some degree, and why some peaks and troughs in some PDO cycles are greater or lesser than peaks and troughs in different PDO cycles.

We know the climatology which is more like what actuaries do than what experimental scientists do. We don’t have a theory of climatology which the scientists are supposed to give to us. Instead the climate boffins give us computer models based on climate hypotheses and expect us to just take it for granted (have faith) that the underlying hypothesis yield the precision and accuracy needed to make grandiose public policy decisions. Uncertainty is rampant and only possibly exceeded in rampantness by the denials of any significant level uncertainty. I weep for what this exercise in academic fraud has done to the general reputation of science.

“William:
I would be nice if you would post some links to the papers you mentioned. I don’t have them handy at the moment.
What you indicated has as much or more validity as AGW.

Thank you.”

Hi Sigurdur,

I have posted links to the GCR, electroscavenging, and cloud papers a couple of times. If the mechanisms are correct the planet will cool, as it did in the past during a deep solar minimum. (There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record that correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes.) I will submit a separate thread that summarizes the GCR/electroscavening science if there is significant observation evidence to support and clarify the mechanisms. I believe I understand what is causing the delay in cooling. GCR has increased therefore if the mechanism is correct the planet should cool due to increasing cloud cover (it has started to cooling) or there must be some mechanism that is removing ions from the atmosphere.

I believe the delay in cooling and the temporary less sever cooling is due to the lag time as the earth equalizes to the new solar potential. There are a suite of anomalous observations that correlate with solar minimums. A significant increase in volcanic activity (magnitude and number of volcanic eruptions) and falling sea level where the fall in sea level is more than twice what would be expected based on cooling of the ocean and thermal contraction. (There are papers written that discuss the anomalous falling and rising ocean level in the pale record and the peculiar sudden increase in volcanic activity in regions that are geographical and geologically separated.) As I have pointed out there are also papers that note there is an abrupt change in the geomagnetic field (archeomagnetic jerks – periodicity roughly 400 years and excursions periodicity roughly 12000 years, last excursion correlates in time with the Younger Dryas) that follow the abrupt solar minimums. The archeomagnetic jerks (geomagnetic field orientation changes by 10 to 15 degrees and the geomagnetic excursion (non-dipole component on the field becomes stronger causing the geomagnetic field intensity to drop by a factor of 3 to 5) appear to be caused by the restart of the solar magnetic cycle after being interrupted. The effects of the solar restart are dependent on the orbital parameters which by change also affect solar insolation at 60 degrees north. (Tilt of planet, seasonal timing of perihelion and so forth.)

Solar cycle 24 is a change from the highest solar activity in 10,000 years to a Maunder minimum. From a physics standpoint the solar mechanism that causes the potential difference is greatest when there is an abrupt change in the number of sunspots. There is also a suite of unexplained astrophysical anomalies that are related to what is causing the potential difference.

In point of fact, the statement, which references the IPCC, is predicated on the assumption that climate models contained realistic internal variability. But the failure of models to be able to predict such a hiatus ahead of time shows that this assumption was wrong. To just assert that it is not a contradiction is to say something as ridiculous, basically, that climate is allowed to be cooled by natural variability but not warmed. Which is evidently what these people believe.

Dave Springer, (Dave Springer says: July 5, 2011 at 11:12 am), I grant that wrong is gradational, but Ptolemaic astronomy requires the earth to not rotate, so at the very least it is wrong about the shape of the earth.

Scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies have been updating their analysis of global surface temperatures, for years. And the latest is available here (see under “Latest News” a link to the .pdf of a draft journal article; one author is the renowned climate scientist, James Hansen).

They’ve found that despite anecdotal observations or unscientific theories, the earth is continuing to warm, based on the evidence:

“We conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade (~ .3 F/decade) that began in the late 1970s.”

Hilarious!! – “Warming was prevented by China burning a whole lot of coal” – you can imagine the outcry if this was suggested by a denier, as it contradicts everything the warmists have been saying for the last 10 years!

So, one country in the world burning some extra coal (which according to the Green zealots is about the worst thing you can burn because it evolves so much ‘greenhouse gas’) can offset the global temperature rise due to its own extra coal burning CO2 emissions AND the extra CO2 emissions of the rest of the world.

Get this: coal burning is a work of supererogation: not only does it counteract the effect of its own CO2 emissions, but it has surplus negative forcing to counteract the rise in carbon emissions from other sources the world over. Every tonne of coal burned more than offsets its CO2 forcing, so its effective carbon footprint is negative, and it should be attracting huge feed-in tariffs and subsidies. It pumps vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere which helps crops grow to feed the world whilst actually cooling the world.

So the answer to global warming and greenhouse gas forcing is simple: burn more coal. If we all convert to coal burning, who knows, the negative forcing will be so great that we will be able to get temperatures down to where they were 60 years ago.

The Green zealots can’t have their cake and eat it: if one country’s coal burning really is suppressing the GLOBAL temperature rise, then coal burning has to be good, doesn’t it? Good ol’ King Coal!

No doubt they have anticipated this answer and knew that this paper was coming out, which explains the flurry of activity about ‘ocean acidification’ last month. Coal is off the hook with regard to global warming, but it’s the villain of the piece for the next scam. You can just see it can’t you? – CO2 dissolves more readily in cold water than warm water, so as coal burning reduces the global temperature rise it will contribute to greater dissolution of CO2 in the oceans. Believe me – that’s the next nonsense you’ll hear!

Here is a radical thought regarding aerosols. Could the impact of aerosols and cosmic rays be greater in an atmosphere with more water vapor in it? There would be more water to condense, hence more effect, right? Or is that a crazy thought?

It’s amazing that this blog continues actively to misinform and disinform the public about man-made climate change. You even take a paper that supports the scientific consensus that CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally warming the planet and try to falsely paint it as a rebuttal to the very science it supports. The senior author Kaufmann has had to correct the denialist industry lobby’s incorrect reporting once again:

“If anything the paper suggests that reductions in carbon emissions will be more important as China installs scrubbers [on its coal-fired power stations], which reduce sulphur emissions. This, and solar insolation increasing as part of the normal solar cycle, [will mean] temperature is likely to increase faster.”

David Falkner says:
July 6, 2011 at 2:30 amThat link doesn’t cover 10,000 years, Leif. Did I miss something?
Yes. The link shows that the last half-century [which is called the ‘Modern Grand Maximum’] is not any ‘grander’ than other periods in the last 300 years.

Excellent post. For those interested in the philosophy of science, the “aerosols from China over-ride all CO2″ meme is what Karl Popper called an “ad hoc hypothesis.” That is, it is a hypothesis invoked to save one’s main set of hypotheses from falsification. In addition, I find it amusing that the first time that Warmista are willing to discuss empirical hypotheses, physical hypotheses, about forcings is out of desperation to save their meme that increasing CO2 causes increasing global temperature.

Maybe the Warmista will discover physical hypotheses about forcings and finally, at this very late date, undertake empirical research on the effects of CO2, aerosols, and other things on the natural processes that make up Earth’s climate. In other words, maybe they will recognize the existence of natural processes other than heat transfer caused by radiation. I know it is too much to ask for, but just maybe they will grow some humility and declare that climate science will be on a firm footing in fifty years.

Ha, ha, thanks for the laugh. At least Michelle knows that there are only 50 states, as opposed to the Heinz 57 varieties ascribed to by Mr. Obama.

You said: “…Most of the people that don’t believe Global Warming are republicans. Gee, I wonder why that is?…” Uh, maybe ‘cuz they’re much smarter than the average person?”

She is also religious.

Do you believe in the boogeyman upstairs? You know, the Santa Claus for adults?

You guys gave us George Bush twice in a row and look what happened to this country. It’s in a debt that it probably will never get out of. Obama is a failure, but he had no chance of correctly all the mistakes made before him.

It seems to me that the study actually proves that the climate models most likely are incorrect. I have no statistical education after the age of 20, but this looks obvious even to me.

As mentioned by others he sets as the null hypothesis that the climate models are correct, and tries to prove beyond a 95% confidence that they are not. In other words, he effectively says, “We have made a model, and we cannot be more than 95% certain it is incorrect, hence we will treat it as correct”.

The size of confidence intervals in Fig. 2, bottom left of page 2, corresponds to this 95%. As far as I remember from my stats, the higher your percentage is, the wider those bars sticking out of the green line would be. Correspondingly, the lower your percentage is, the tighter they are.

At several points the black line is almost outside the green confidence interval. I should think that if you instead asked “Is it 60% likely that the climate models are incorrect?” the bars would have been much tighter so the black line would have been outside.

What the study then actually says is that “We can’t be 95% certain we are wrong, but hello everyone, I am happy to announce that we are at least 60% certain we are wrong!”

Worshipers of the god Zagg prayed for warming. But worshipers of the god Zogg prayed for cooling. Now the climate stayed flat. So the clear explanation is that the prayers to the two respective gods cancelled each-other out.

Unfortunately for this tidy explanation however, there exists this inconvenient principle “Occam’s razor”, that an explanation and mechanism should involve the minimum number of factors, i.e. be economical or parsimonious. It is in fact a powerful and important scientific principle. Climate science in general and this paper in particular drive a coach and horses through Occam’s razor.

The overwhelming probability is that the flat global temperature over the last decade is neither the mutual cancellation of the prayers to Zagg and Zogg, nor of the effects of CO2 and smokestack particulates, but instead, the operation of other natural factors.

How on earth have we come to the situation in climate science when the word “natural” provokes a hostile reaction? Where the operation of “natural” factors is the nemesis of our pet theories?

What’s wrong with natural? Why dont we like natural? Did we forget that CO2 itself is natural? It did not come into the world like sin, with the fall of man (i.e. industrialisation).

“Up until now, they’ve always said that the argument was best discussed in the “peer-reviewed” papers. So, with this, we now add the Courier Mail and the NY Times as peer-reviewed papers.”

Keep in mind that “peer” is a relative term. I can think of several proponents of AGW who would most properly need to send their submissions to Mad Magazine for true “peer review.”

This admission of Global Stasis is no mis-step in the AGW campaign. Indeed, it is just Step One of the newly-developed theme that Mr. Gore is about to present to us. From recently-leaked videotape out of a major studio, we see this:

(Scene opens outdoors, bright and sunny day in the country, camera pans with distant horses running along a fence past gamboling lambs, children playing with a dog, camera stops and focuses close foreground on man in flannel shirt facing camera.)

GORE: Friends, five years ago, I came to you with a plea in the form of my movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Y’all watched my movie several times (for which I thank you), and the world took its warning to heart. Now, after five years of global effort and cooperation, many global conferences, and an ever-growing awareness around the world of the deadly effects of carbon, I come before you today to announce that it appears that our efforts are working! This chart proves that our efforts have been well-founded. But there’s still more to be done . . .

This morning (Monday 11 July 2011) a bunch of flea-brains were standing in front of a Nundah(Brisbane) Hall chanting “Climate change is proven fact”. Of course it is. If the climate gets hotter, then the big polluters are proven responsible. If the climate gets colder, then the same big polluters are to blame. Only by eliminating all the big polluters (organisations which keep people fed, warm and housed) can all the adverse effects on our hitherto idyllic climate be removed. Then, when it is discovered that the climate still gets hotter (or colder), it will be because all the big polluters were not destroyed earlier. Inside the hall, Hon Joe Hockey and Senator George Brandis were attempting to counter the arguments of the GreensALP Government while refusing to use their most obvioius weapon; the weapon of truth. To earn the respect and support of the wise majority, all they need to state is the obvious: “Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant”

Only when a heterozygous brown eyed child from the F1 generation marries a similar heterozygous brown eyed individual will you have a 3:1 ratio of brown eyed children in the F2 – 25% homozygous brown eyed, 50% heterozygous brown-eyed and 25 homozygous blue eyed.

“Long term warming will continue unless emissions are reduced,” said Peter Stott,

Wait a minute, don’t we want long term warming reduced? Could we do without carbon taxes and global warming by the simple expedient of increasing particulate and sulfate pollution? More coal fired power plants, more cars, less scrubbers?

I think our warmist friends have found the light at the end of the tunnel.

My uneducated guess is that the fluctuations in the 5 year average is due to the sunspot cycle. That, taken together with La Nina and increased aerosols from China, should be quite enough to account for the reduced warming rate.

Especially funny is when they end the paper with: ‘Both of these effects, along with changes in natural variables must be examined explicitly by efforts to understand climate change and devise policy that complies with the objective of Article 2 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to stabilize “greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmospehre at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system.”’, they send it to the PNAS, and expressly declare there no conflict of interest. (see here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108)
Very nice. Isn’t this in legal terms called perjury?

Maybe people should actually go and take a look at the reports and data that’s out there in relation to this issue for themselves instead of quoting from internet and magazine articles and stating them as facts? The warming effect can’t be looked at in terms of a few years or a decade because the data shows that yes there have been periods of non warming that have lasted about this amount of time but overall (and the data does show this) over the long term the temperature has been increasing and at a faster rate than it should for anyone to state that global warming has ceased just because of a period of non warming is just stupid and naive at best.

Jim… If you notice the must uneducated people are on your side. Think about all of those ignorant southerners that are also conservative Republicans.

Really, that should be enough to get you to think your position over.

But you keep on believing the type of people that told us tobacco doesn’t cause cancer. Your kind will be made a fool of once again in the future.

Brian, you must be a prejudiced bigot. BTW, the Heartlands argument was against second hand smoke, not smoking, and for the record I never agreed with their position. Brian, were you a fool who supported the ban on DDT? (The lesson is, each subject stands or fails on its own merrit. The case ofr CAGW is looking to be a fail)